Phatak, Jaipur v. State Of Rajasthan Through The Dy. Secretary, Govt. Of

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Dy. Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Commandant 5Th Battalion, Rac, Jaipur. Addl. Inspector General Of Police, Rac, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Sandeep Saxena with Ms. Neha Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishesh Sharma for Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.GC. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL 04/09/2025 Order This writ petition is directed against the order dated

29.10.2004 passed by the respondent no.2-the disciplinary authority whereby, the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of ‘dismissal from service’, the order dated 15.04.2005 passed by the respondent no.3-the appellate authority dismissing his appeal as also the order dated 12.05.2005 passed by the respondent no.1 dismissing the review petition. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on compassionate ground in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. Vide memorandum dated 19.06.2003, he [2025:RJ-JP:35622] (2 of 6) [CW-10064/2008] was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 1958’). After holding the enquiry, he was punished with the penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ vide order dated 29.10.2004 which was unsuccessfully challenged by him before the appellate authority and the reviewing authority. Assailing the aforesaid orders, the only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that for his absence for the subject period, he had submitted the medical certificates to demonstrate that it was not willful; but, without recording a finding that the medical certificates produced by him were forged or not genuine, he has been dismissed from service which is not tenable in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the orders impugned be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. The petitioner was issued the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 with following charges:- vkjksi izFke& ;g gS fd vki Lohd`r “kqnk 1 ;ksx vkdfLed vodk”k ,oa 1 ;kse jktif=r vodk”k ij fnukad 10-10-2002 ls 11-10-2002 rd jokuk gq, FksA vken fnukad 12-10-2002 dks nksigj iwoZ Fkh] ijUrq vki lgh le; ij viuh M;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gksdj 43 fnu [2025:RJ-JP:35622] (3 of 6) [CW-10064/2008] ckn fnukad 23-11-2002 dks ckn nksigj viuh M;wVh ij mifLFkr gq,A vkidks pkfg, Fkk fd vki le; ij viuh M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksrs ;k vodk”k o`f) gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr djrs o vodk”k Lohd`r djokdj eq[;ky; NksMus dh vuqefr izkIr dj eq[;ky; NksMrs ;k viuh vuqifLFkfr dh lwpuk bl dk;kZy; dks nsrs] ijUrq vkius ,slk ugha fd;kA vkjksi f}rh;% ;g gS fd vki fnukad 30-12-2002 ls 15-02-2003 rd 48 fnu LosPNkiwoZd viuh M;wVh ls Qjkj jgdj M;wVh ij mifLFkr gq,A bl izdkj vki dqy 91 fnu LosPNkiwoZd M;wVh ls Qjkj jgsA vkius mDr vuqifLFkfr ds le; bl dk;kZy; dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ lwpuk ugha nhA vkjksi r`rh;% vkidks mDr vuqifLFkfr ds nkSjku M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus gsrq bl dk;kZy; ,oa dk;kZy; dEiuh dek.Mj ^^,Q** dEiuh ikapoh cVkfy;u vkj,lh }kjk uksfVl Hkh tkjh fd;s] ijUrq vkius uksfVlksa dh ijokg ugha dh vksj mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns”kksa dh vogsyuh djrs jgsA vkidks pkfg, Fkk fd vki viuh M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksrs rFkk viuh vuqifLFkfr dh lwpuk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks nsrs ,oa vodk”k Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr djrs] ijUrq vkius ,slk ugha fd;kA vkjksi prqFkZ% ;g gS fd vki fnukad 07-01-2002 ds HkrhZ “kqnk gS rFkk vc rd ds nks o’kZ ds lsokdky esa 4 ckj izf”k{k.k ds nkSjku vuqifLFkr jg pds gSA vkidk mDr d`R; iqfyl eq[;ky; ds ्ቝायी vkns”k la[;k 2@98 ds vuqlkj vuq”kklukRed dk;Zokgh fd;s tus ;ksX; gSA vkidk mDr d`R; M;wVh ds izfr mnklhurk] ?kksj vuq”kklughurk LosPNkpkfjrk] drZO; foeq[krk] mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns”kksa dh vogsyyuk o jkT; lsok ds izfr v:fp dk ?kksrd gS] tks nqjkpj.k dh laKk esa vkrk gS ,oa jktLFkku lsok fu;eksa ds rgr n.Muh; gSA vfrfjDr vkjksi ;g gS fd vki Jh dj.kohj fjØwV dkfu 728 ^^,Q** dEiuh ikapoh cVkfy;u vkj,lh t;iqj esa fjØwV dkfu- ds in ij inLFkkfir gSA vkjksi la[;k iape% ;g gS fd vki fnukad 07-01-2002 ds HkrhZ”kqnk gSA vkidks csfld izf”k{k.k gsrq cSp uEcj 39@2001 esa jktLFkku iqfyl izf”k{k.k dsUnz tks/kiqj fnukad 18-01-2002 dks Hkstk x;k Fkk tgka ls vki LosPNk ls Qjkj gks x;sA [2025:RJ-JP:35622] (4 of 6) [CW-10064/2008] ftlds dkj.k vkidks fcuk izf”k{k.k iw.kZ fd;s ;wfuV ds fy;s jokuk fd;k x;kA vkidks iqu% csfld izf”k{k.k gsrq cSp uEcj 40@2002 esa fnukad 16-02-2003 dks nksigj ckn okil cSfld izf”k{k.k gsrq Hkstk x;k ysfdu vki iqu% fnukad 21-03-2003 dks LosPNkiwoZd Qjkj gks x;s ftlds dkj.k vkidks mDr izf”k{k.k cSp ls ckgj dj fn;kA vki fnukad 02-05-2003 ls 03-05-2003 rd 2 fnu vkdfLed vodk”k Lohd`r “kqnk ds jokuk gksdj 78 fnu vuqifLFkr jgdj fnukad 21-07-03 dks nksigj iwoZ mifLFkr gq,A vkius foHkkx dks fdlh izdkj dh lwpuk ugha nhA mijksDr fooj.kkuqlkj cSfld izf”k{k.k gsrq vkidks nks volj iznku fd;s x;s] ijUrq vki }kjk ykijokgh iwoZd nksuksa voljksa esa izf”k{k.k iwoZ ugha fd;k tks egkfuns”kd iqfyl jktLFkku] t;iqj ds LFkkbZ vkns”k la[;k 14@92 dh vogsyuk gS ,oa vki }kjk fu;qfDr le; Hkjs x;s lsok ck.M dh “krksZa ds foifjr gSA vkidks pkfg, Fkk fd vki fu’Bk iwoZd yXu o esgur ls cSfld izf”k{k.k esa Hkkx ysdj izf”k{k.k iw.kZ djrs] ijUrq vkius ,slk ugha fd;kA vkjksi la[;k ‘k’Ve% ;g gS fd vki }kjk ykijokgh iwoZd nks voljksa esa Hkh cSfld izf”k{k.k iw.kZ ugha djuk vki }kjk Hkjs x;s lsok ckW.M ds foijhr gSA tks vki }kjk vc rd izkIr osru HkRrksa ds vykok 1500 :i;s izf”k{k.k [kpZ o vU; jkf”k olwy करने ;ksX; gSA vkidk ifjfo{kk/khu le; esa dksbZ larks’ktud ugha gksus ls bl dk;kZy; }kjk ,d o’kZ fd vfrfjDr vof/k ds fy, ifjoh{kk vof/k c<+kbZ xbZ gSA vkidk mDr d`R; csfld izf”k{k.k ds izfr mnklhurk ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns”kksa dh vogsyuk rFkk jkT; lsok ds izfr v:fp dk ?kksrd gSA tks jkT; lsok fu;eksa ds rgr n.Muh; gS rFkk vc rd izkIr osru HkRrksa ds vykok 1500 :- izf”k{k.k [kpZ olwy djus ;ksX; gSA The petitioner did not file any response to the charge-sheet. The enquiry officer, vide his report dated 21.09.2004, found the charges no.1, 2 and 5 to be fully proved, the charge no.4 to be partly proved and the charges no.3 and 6 not to be proved. The disciplinary authority, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, inflicted the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon [2025:RJ-JP:35622] (5 of 6) [CW-10064/2008] him. A perusal of the order impugned dated 29.10.2004 reflects that while finding the charge no.1 to be proved against him, it was held that the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner were issued by the different doctors, some of the certificates were issued by the medical officer(s) lower in hierarchy than the treating medical officer, corresponding prescription slip(s) as also the medical bills were not produced. While finding him guilty of the charge no.2, it was held that the petitioner was not able to establish his defence that he could not attend the duty on account of illness of his mother. It was held that the petitioner never informed the department or the higher officials even telephonically that his mother was ill and in his joining application (Ex P7), neither the period for which his mother was ill, was mentioned nor, where and under whom she was under treatment, was reflected nor, any certificate of her illness was submitted. While holding him partly guilty of charge no.4, after appreciating the material on record, it was held that the petitioner remained absent from training thrice during his two years of service. Similarly, after appreciating the evidence on record, the petitioner was found guilty of charge no.5. The appeal as also the review petition preferred by him have been dismissed vide reasoned and speaking orders. Thus, from the material on record, this Court finds that the penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ has been inflicted on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority after proper appreciation of the evidence on record which has been upheld by the appellate authority as also by the reviewing authority. During the short service tenure of about two years, the petitioner has absented himself from the training thrice and has remained willfully absent [2025:RJ-JP:35622] (6 of 6) [CW-10064/2008] from duty more than once and in view thereof, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the order impugned. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without recording a finding that the medical certificates submitted by him to justify his absence were forged, he could not have been held guilty, does not merit acceptance. In the order impugned dated 29.10.2004, the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner have been disbelieved assigning the cogent reasons, as stated hereinabove. Even otherwise, it is trite law that this Court, under its writ jurisdiction, does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority based on appreciation of the evidence on record. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. PRAGATI/138 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J